-
Caplan, P.; Guenther, R.: Metadata for Internet resources : the Dublin Core Metadata Elements Set and its mapping to USMARC (1996)
0.04
0.038632408 = product of:
0.05794861 = sum of:
0.023044726 = weight(_text_:to in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023044726 = score(doc=2408,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.2783311 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
0.034903888 = product of:
0.069807775 = sum of:
0.069807775 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069807775 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This paper discuesses the goals and outcome of the OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop held March 1-3, 1995 in Dublin Ohio. The resulting proposed "Dublin Core" Metadata Elements Set is described briefly. An attempt is made to map the Dublin Core data elements to USMARC; problems and outstanding questions are noted.
- Date
- 13. 1.2007 18:31:22
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58
-
El-Sherbini, M.: Metadata and the future of cataloging (2001)
0.04
0.03628759 = product of:
0.054431386 = sum of:
0.029750613 = weight(_text_:to in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029750613 = score(doc=751,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.3593239 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
0.024680775 = product of:
0.04936155 = sum of:
0.04936155 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04936155 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This article is a survey of representative metadata efforts comparing them to MARC 21 metadata in order to determine if new electronic formats require the development of a new set of standards. This study surveys the ongoing metadata projects in order to identify what types of metadata exist and how they are used and also compares and analyzes selected metadata elements in an attempt to illustrate how they are related to MARC 21 metadata format elements.
- Date
- 23. 1.2007 11:22:30
-
Aalberg, T.; Haugen, F.B.; Husby, O.: ¬A Tool for Converting from MARC to FRBR (2006)
0.03
0.03493127 = product of:
0.0523969 = sum of:
0.030801224 = weight(_text_:to in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030801224 = score(doc=2425,freq=14.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.37201303 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
0.021595677 = product of:
0.043191355 = sum of:
0.043191355 = weight(_text_:22 in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043191355 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The FRBR model is by many considered to be an important contribution to the next generation of bibliographic catalogues, but a major challenge for the library community is how to use this model on already existing MARC-based bibliographic catalogues. This problem requires a solution for the interpretation and conversion of MARC records, and a tool for this kind of conversion is developed as a part of the Norwegian BIBSYS FRBR project. The tool is based on a systematic approach to the interpretation and conversion process and is designed to be adaptable to the rules applied in different catalogues.
- Source
- Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006
-
Carini, P.; Shepherd, K.: ¬The MARC standard and encoded archival description (2004)
0.03
0.034193687 = product of:
0.05129053 = sum of:
0.026609756 = weight(_text_:to in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026609756 = score(doc=2830,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.32138905 = fieldWeight in 2830, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2830)
0.024680775 = product of:
0.04936155 = sum of:
0.04936155 = weight(_text_:22 in 2830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04936155 = score(doc=2830,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2830, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2830)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This case study details the evolution of descriptive practices and standards used in the Mount Holyoke College Archives and the Five College Finding Aids Access Project, discusses the relationship of Encoded Archival Description (EAD) and the MARC standard in reference to archival description, and addresses the challenges and opportunities of transferring data from one metadata standard to another. The study demonstrates that greater standardization in archival description allows archivists to respond more effectively to technological change.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.18-27
-
Jacobs, J.W.; Summers, E.; Ankersen, E.: Cyril: expanding the horizons of MARC21 (2004)
0.03
0.034193687 = product of:
0.05129053 = sum of:
0.026609756 = weight(_text_:to in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026609756 = score(doc=4749,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.32138905 = fieldWeight in 4749, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4749)
0.024680775 = product of:
0.04936155 = sum of:
0.04936155 = weight(_text_:22 in 4749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04936155 = score(doc=4749,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4749, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4749)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Describes the construction of the author's Perl program, Cyril, to add vernacular Russian (Cyrillic) characters to existing MARC records. The program takes advantage of the ALA-LC standards for Romanization to create character mappings that "de-transliterate" specified MARC fields. The creation of Cyril raises both linguistic and technical issues, which are thoroughly examined. Concludes by considering the implications for cataloging and authority control standards, as we move to a multilingual, multi-script bibliographic environment.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.8-17
-
Coyle, K.: Future considerations : the functional library systems record (2004)
0.03
0.034193687 = product of:
0.05129053 = sum of:
0.026609756 = weight(_text_:to in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026609756 = score(doc=562,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.32138905 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
0.024680775 = product of:
0.04936155 = sum of:
0.04936155 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04936155 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The paper performs a thought experiment on the concept of a record based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and library system functions, and concludes that if we want to develop a functional bibliographic record we need to do it within the context of a flexible, functional library systems record structure. The article suggests a new way to look at the library systems record that would allow libraries to move forward in terms of technology but also in terms of serving library users.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174
-
Tennant, R.: ¬A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty-first century (2004)
0.03
0.03213918 = product of:
0.048208766 = sum of:
0.013304878 = weight(_text_:to in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013304878 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.16069452 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
0.034903888 = product of:
0.069807775 = sum of:
0.069807775 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069807775 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The current library bibliographic infrastructure was constructed in the early days of computers - before the Web, XML, and a variety of other technological advances that now offer new opportunities. General requirements of a modern metadata infrastructure for libraries are identified, including such qualities as versatility, extensibility, granularity, and openness. A new kind of metadata infrastructure is then proposed that exhibits at least some of those qualities. Some key challenges that must be overcome to implement a change of this magnitude are identified.
- Date
- 9.12.2005 19:22:38
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181
-
Gopinath, M.A.: Standardization for resource sharing databases (1995)
0.03
0.031817 = product of:
0.0477255 = sum of:
0.023044726 = weight(_text_:to in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023044726 = score(doc=4414,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.2783311 = fieldWeight in 4414, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4414)
0.024680775 = product of:
0.04936155 = sum of:
0.04936155 = weight(_text_:22 in 4414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04936155 = score(doc=4414,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4414, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4414)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- It is helpful and essential to adopt standards for bibliographic information, project description and institutional information which are shareable for access to information resources within a country. Describes a strategy for adopting international standards of bibliographic information exchange for developing a resource sharing facilitation database in India. A list of 22 ISO standards for information processing is included
- Source
- Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 32(1995) no.3, S.i-iv
-
Bourne, R.: MARC harmonization : progress and problems (1997)
0.03
0.031817 = product of:
0.0477255 = sum of:
0.023044726 = weight(_text_:to in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023044726 = score(doc=873,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.2783311 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
0.024680775 = product of:
0.04936155 = sum of:
0.04936155 = weight(_text_:22 in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04936155 = score(doc=873,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The British Library have conformed their decision to go ahead with the harmonization programme between the US and UKMARC formats, and although the final date for the changeover is still not yet, they expect the whole process to be over in 2 years, with one further year after that when they will support UKMARC. Describes the progress made so far, and problems that remain to be solved
- Source
- LASER link. 1997, Spring/Summer, S.22-24
-
Cundiff, M.V.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) (2004)
0.03
0.031817 = product of:
0.0477255 = sum of:
0.023044726 = weight(_text_:to in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023044726 = score(doc=2834,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.2783311 = fieldWeight in 2834, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2834)
0.024680775 = product of:
0.04936155 = sum of:
0.04936155 = weight(_text_:22 in 2834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04936155 = score(doc=2834,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2834, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2834)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This article provides an introductory overview of the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard, better known as METS. It will be of most use to librarians and technical staff who are encountering METS for the first time. The article contains a brief history of the development of METS, a primer covering the basic structure and content of METS documents, and a discussion of several issues relevant to the implementation and continuing development of METS including object models, extension schemata, and application profiles.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.52-64
-
Ranta, J.A.: Queens Borough Public Library's Guidelines for cataloging community information (1996)
0.03
0.031751644 = product of:
0.047627464 = sum of:
0.026031785 = weight(_text_:to in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026031785 = score(doc=6523,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.3144084 = fieldWeight in 6523, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6523)
0.021595677 = product of:
0.043191355 = sum of:
0.043191355 = weight(_text_:22 in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043191355 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6523, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6523)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Currently, few resources exist to guide libraries in the cataloguing of community information using the new USMARC Format for Cammunity Information (1993). In developing a community information database, Queens Borough Public Library, New York City, formulated their own cataloguing procedures for applying AACR2, LoC File Interpretations, and USMARC Format for Community Information to community information. Their practices include entering corporate names directly whenever possible and assigning LC subject headings for classes of persons and topics, adding neighbourhood level geographic subdivisions. The guidelines were specially designed to aid non cataloguers in cataloguing community information and have enabled library to maintain consistency in handling corporate names and in assigning subject headings, while creating database that is highly accessible to library staff and users
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.51-69
-
Murphy, C.: Curriculum-enhanced MARC (CEMARC) : a new cataloging format for school librarians (1995)
0.03
0.03133657 = product of:
0.04700485 = sum of:
0.016463947 = weight(_text_:to in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016463947 = score(doc=5100,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.19884932 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
0.030540902 = product of:
0.061081804 = sum of:
0.061081804 = weight(_text_:22 in 5100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061081804 = score(doc=5100,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 5100, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5100)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Briefly summarizes the problems encountered when attempting to use the USMARC cataloguing format in US school libraries and describes the development of CEMARC format by the Northwest Ohio Educational Technology Foundation (NWOET), which addresses the main problems by: offering sata entry guidelines for a minimum USMARC standard in order to clarify inconsistencies in application; and by suggesting enhancements and new fields that go beyond the USMARC standard. Concludes with brief notes on early CEMARC implementation
- Date
- 11. 9.1996 19:22:20
- Source
- Literacy: traditional, cultural, technological. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the International Association of School Librarianship (selected papers), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh University, School of Library and Information Science, 17-22 Jul 94
-
Kurth, M.; Ruddy, D.; Rupp, N.: Repurposing MARC metadata : using digital project experience to develop a metadata management design (2004)
0.03
0.031156328 = product of:
0.04673449 = sum of:
0.02822391 = weight(_text_:to in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02822391 = score(doc=4748,freq=16.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.34088457 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
0.018510582 = product of:
0.037021164 = sum of:
0.037021164 = weight(_text_:22 in 4748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037021164 = score(doc=4748,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4748, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4748)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Metadata and information technology staff in libraries that are building digital collections typically extract and manipulate MARC metadata sets to provide access to digital content via non-MARC schemes. Metadata processing in these libraries involves defining the relationships between metadata schemes, moving metadata between schemes, and coordinating the intellectual activity and physical resources required to create and manipulate metadata. Actively managing the non-MARC metadata resources used to build digital collections is something most of these libraries have only begun to do. This article proposes strategies for managing MARC metadata repurposing efforts as the first step in a coordinated approach to library metadata management. Guided by lessons learned from Cornell University library mapping and transformation activities, the authors apply the literature of data resource management to library metadata management and propose a model for managing MARC metadata repurposing processes through the implementation of a metadata management design.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.144-152
-
McCallum, S.H.: ¬An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) (2004)
0.03
0.028997809 = product of:
0.043496713 = sum of:
0.018815938 = weight(_text_:to in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018815938 = score(doc=81,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.22725637 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
0.024680775 = product of:
0.04936155 = sum of:
0.04936155 = weight(_text_:22 in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04936155 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This paper provides an introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), a MARC21 compatible XML schema for descriptive metadata. It explains the requirements that the schema targets and the special features that differentiate it from MARC, such as user-oriented tags, regrouped data elements, linking, recursion, and accommodations for electronic resources.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.82-88
-
Yee, M.M.: New perspectives on the shared cataloging environment and a MARC 21 shopping list (2004)
0.03
0.028997809 = product of:
0.043496713 = sum of:
0.018815938 = weight(_text_:to in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018815938 = score(doc=132,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.22725637 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
0.024680775 = product of:
0.04936155 = sum of:
0.04936155 = weight(_text_:22 in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04936155 = score(doc=132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This paper surveys the cataloging literature to collect problems that have been identified with the MARC 21 format. The problems are sorted into (1) problems that are not the fault of MARC 21; (2) problems that perhaps are not problems at all; (3) problems that are connected with the current shared cataloging environment; and 4) other problems with MARC 21 and vendor implementation of it. The author makes recommendations to deal with the true MARC 21 problems that remain after this analysis.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Weber, L.B.: Reading formatting MARC AMC (1990)
0.03
0.028997809 = product of:
0.043496713 = sum of:
0.018815938 = weight(_text_:to in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018815938 = score(doc=484,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.22725637 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
0.024680775 = product of:
0.04936155 = sum of:
0.04936155 = weight(_text_:22 in 484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04936155 = score(doc=484,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 484, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=484)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This paper discusses how archivists use the MARC AMC format to exchange information about archival materials. The paper explains the modifications that MARC AMC introduced to the MARC bibliographic formats; gives examples of a record in generic USMARC AMC, RLIN AMC, and OCLC AMC; and considers the possible impact of format integration. The paper concludes with some thoughts about the changes that MARC AMC is causing in the archival profession.
- Date
- 8. 1.2007 14:22:51
-
Keith, C.: Using XSLT to manipulate MARC metadata (2004)
0.03
0.028635468 = product of:
0.0429532 = sum of:
0.02444262 = weight(_text_:to in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02444262 = score(doc=4747,freq=12.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.29521468 = fieldWeight in 4747, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4747)
0.018510582 = product of:
0.037021164 = sum of:
0.037021164 = weight(_text_:22 in 4747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037021164 = score(doc=4747,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4747, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4747)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This paper describes the MARCXML architecture implemented at the Library of Congress. It gives an overview of the component pieces of the architecture, including the MARCXML schema and the MARCXML toolkit, while giving a brief tutorial on their use. Several different applications of the architecture and tools are discussed to illustrate the features of the toolkit being developed thus far. Nearly any metadata format can take advantage of the features of the toolkit, and the process of the toolkit enabling a new format is discussed. Finally, this paper intends to foster new ideas with regards to the transformation of descriptive metadata, especially using XML tools. In this paper the following conventions will be used: MARC21 will refer to MARC 21 records in the ISO 2709 record structure used today; MARCXML will refer to MARC 21 records in an XML structure.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.122-130
-
Riva, P.: Mapping MARC 21 linking entry fields to FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2004)
0.03
0.028635468 = product of:
0.0429532 = sum of:
0.02444262 = weight(_text_:to in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02444262 = score(doc=136,freq=12.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.29521468 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
0.018510582 = product of:
0.037021164 = sum of:
0.037021164 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037021164 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Bibliographic relationships have taken on even greater importance in the context of ongoing efforts to integrate concepts from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) into cataloging codes and database structures. In MARC 21, the linking entry fields are a major mechanism for expressing relationships between bibliographic records. Taxonomies of bibliographic relationships have been proposed by Tillett, with an extension by Smiraglia, and in FRBR itself. The present exercise is to provide a detailed bidirectional mapping of the MARC 21 linking fields to these two schemes. The correspondence of the Tillett taxonomic divisions to the MARC categorization of the linking fields as chronological, horizontal, or vertical is examined as well. Application of the findings to MARC format development and system functionality is discussed.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Snow, M.: Visual depictions and the use of MARC : a view from the trenches of slide librarianship (1989)
0.03
0.027839875 = product of:
0.04175981 = sum of:
0.020164136 = weight(_text_:to in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020164136 = score(doc=2862,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.24353972 = fieldWeight in 2862, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2862)
0.021595677 = product of:
0.043191355 = sum of:
0.043191355 = weight(_text_:22 in 2862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043191355 = score(doc=2862,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2862, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2862)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Paper presented at a symposium on 'Implementing the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT): Controlled Vocabulary in the Extended MARC format', held at the 1989 Annual Conference of the Art Libraries Society of North America. The only way to get bibliographic records on to campus on-line library catalogues, and slide records on the national bibliographic utilities, is through the use of MARC. Discusses the importance of having individual slide and photograph records on the national bibliographic utilities, and considers the obstacles which currently make this difficult. Discusses mapping to MARC from data base management systems.
- Date
- 4.12.1995 22:51:36
-
Crook, M.: Barbara Tillett discusses cataloging rules and conceptual models (1996)
0.03
0.027839875 = product of:
0.04175981 = sum of:
0.020164136 = weight(_text_:to in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020164136 = score(doc=7683,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.24353972 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
0.021595677 = product of:
0.043191355 = sum of:
0.043191355 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043191355 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045541126 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The chief of cataloguing policy and support office at the LoC presents her views on the usefulness of conceptual modelling in determining future directions for cataloguing and the MARC format. After describing the evolution of bibliographic processes, suggests usign the entity-relationship conceptual model to step back from how we record information today and start thinking about what information really means and why we provide it. Argues that now is the time to reexamine the basic principles which underpin Anglo-American cataloguing codes and that MARC formats should be looked at to see how they can evolve towards a future, improved structure for communicating bibliographic and authority information
- Source
- OCLC newsletter. 1996, no.220, S.20-22
